Research into the impact of juvenile records show authors conducted focus groups, interviews and surveys of youth and adults with juvenile records, family members, juvenile justice practitioners, and key stakeholders and found that individuals with juvenile records face barriers in applying for jobs and professional licenses, enrolling in the military, accessing housing and securing other financial supports.

Research discussing the fairness and effectiveness of placing children on probation. Outlines the most common failings of probation orders and offers suggestions for making them age-appropriate, legal, and targeted towards positive development instead of seeking blind compliance.

The Center for Children’s Law and Policy has prepared a new toolkit designed to help jurisdictions create an effective graduated response system or improve an existing system. The publication collects best practices and examples from jurisdictions around the country that have successfully reduced incarceration for technical violations of probation.

Data reported by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice shows that most children tried as adults in Florida are charged with non-violent felony offenses, primarily property and drug crimes, or misdemeanors. Moreover, more than 70 percent of children convicted in adult court are sentenced to probation, not prison, calling into question whether a more serious, adult court transfer was necessary in the first place. These facts are reason for concern and highlight the need for change in Florida’s “direct file” system. -

This article addresses retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation from the perspective of a thirty-six year old prisoner who has been serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole since he was fourteen years old.

A report for the United Nations' Human Rights Council condemns the use of extreme sentencing, juvenile life without parole, shackling, solitary confinement, and youth in adult court in juvenile justice systems in the U.S.

Following Miller v. Alabama and a state Supreme Court case (Bear Cloud v. State, 294 P.3d 36 (2013)), Wyoming eliminated mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Youth may still be sentenced to life without parole for certain crimes, but must become eligible for parole once they have served at least 25 years, or if their sentence is commuted to a term of years. H.B. 23/Act No. 18, signed into law February 14, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision rules that Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively, and that life without the possibility of parole is an unconstitutional sentence for youth under the age of 18 - whether mandatory or discretionary.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court outlawed all sentences of life without parole for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk District, 466 Mass. 655 (2013). The court cited concerns related to the disproportionality of the sentence when it is applied to youth, and the fact that it is impossible for a court to determine that a youth under age 18 is “irretrievably depraved.” Diatchenko also held that Miller must be applied retroactively, allowing over 60 people serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed when they were 18 to become eligible for parole after serving at least a 15-year sentence. A separate decision ruled that the Diatchenko decision also had to be applied to currently pending cases. Commonwealth v. Marquise Brown, 466 Mass. 676 (2013). Over 80 existing cases were directly impacted by the ruling.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. Alabama, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court outlawed all sentences of life without parole for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Diatchenko v. District Attorney for Suffolk District, 466 Mass. 655 (2013). The court cited concerns related to the disproportionality of the sentence when it is applied to youth, and the fact that it is impossible for a court to determine that a youth under age 18 is “irretrievably depraved.” Diatchenko also held that Miller must be applied retroactively, allowing over 60 people serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed when they were 18 to become eligible for parole after serving at least a 15-year sentence. A separate decision ruled that the Diatchenko decision also had to be applied to currently pending cases. Commonwealth v. Marquise Brown, 466 Mass. 676 (2013). Over 80 existing cases were directly impacted by the ruling.

A federal judge ordered the state of Michigan to immediately comply with the Miller v. Alabama U.S. Supreme Court decision, which eliminates mandatory sentences of life without parole for crimes committed by youth under age 18. The order states that the state must give notice of eligibility of parole to all individuals who have served ten years of their sentence, and to create an administrative structure to process and determine parole for these individuals in a “fair, meaningful, and realistic” manner. Additionally, the order states that the parole board must explain its reasoning in each case; sentencing judges may not veto parole decisions; and the state may not deny individuals sentenced to juvenile life without parole access to any educational or training programs that are available to the general prison population. However, the ruling is currently under appeal and the state attorney general has put a stay on any reviews by the parole board. Hill v. Snyder, Case No.10-14568 (E.D. Mich., Nov 26, 2013).

Citing the holdings and reasoning from Miller v. Alabama, Graham v. Florida, and People v. Caballero, California passed legislation to increase parole opportunities for individuals sentenced to long terms for serious crimes committed when they were youth. Prior law allowed individuals to submit a petition for recall and resentencing after serving 15 years. Now, people are automatically eligible for a "meaningful opportunity" for release on parole during the 15th year of incarceration if they received a determinate sentence, during the 20th year if they received a sentence less than 25 years to life sentence, and during the 25th year if they received a 25 years to life sentence. The law requires the parole board to give "great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity." The law also allows statements from family members, friends, school personnel, faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations who knew the individual prior to the crime or who can comment on the individual's growth and maturity since the commission of the crime. The law does not apply to individuals sentenced for "three strikes" offenses or individuals sentenced to life without parole. S.B. 260/Act No. 312, signed into law September 16, 2013; effective January 1, 2014.

Coming into compliance with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, the Iowa Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth. The court issued opinions in three separate cases, all citing the unique rehabilitative qualities of youth and stating that adolescence should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Notably, in Iowa v. Null, the court invalidated a mandatory minimum sentence of 52.5 years, and in Iowa v. Pearson, the court rejected a 35-year sentence, finding that although neither were sentences of life without parole, the length of the sentences still “violate the core teachings of Miller.” In Iowa v. Ragland, the court held that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively to youth who have already been convicted, allowing hundreds of youth to seek resentencing. State of Iowa v. Null, No. 11–1080 (2013).

Coming into compliance with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, the Iowa Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth. The court issued opinions in three separate cases, all citing the unique rehabilitative qualities of youth and stating that adolescence should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Notably, in Iowa v. Null, the court invalidated a mandatory minimum sentence of 52.5 years, and in Iowa v. Pearson, the court rejected a 35-year sentence, finding that although neither were sentences of life without parole, the length of the sentences still “violate the core teachings of Miller.” In Iowa v. Ragland, the court held that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively to youth who have already been convicted, allowing hundreds of youth to seek resentencing. State of Iowa v. Pearson, No. 11–1214 (2013).

Coming into compliance with the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, the Iowa Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth. The court issued opinions in three separate cases, all citing the unique rehabilitative qualities of youth and stating that adolescence should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. Notably, in Iowa v. Null, the court invalidated a mandatory minimum sentence of 52.5 years, and in Iowa v. Pearson, the court rejected a 35-year sentence, finding that although neither were sentences of life without parole, the length of the sentences still “violate the core teachings of Miller.” In Iowa v. Ragland, the court held that the Miller decision must be applied retroactively to youth who have already been convicted, allowing hundreds of youth to seek resentencing. State of Iowa v. Ragland, No. 12–1758 (2013).

In order to comply with Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), Louisiana passed legislation establishing parole eligibility for certain youth sentenced to life imprisonment for homicide offenses. However, it replaced the life without parole sentence with a 35 year mandatory minimum sentence which is not retroactive. When sentencing youth convicted of first- or second-degree murder, the court must conduct a hearing to determine whether any life sentence should include parole eligibility, taking into consideration the facts of the crime, criminal history, level of family support, and social history of the youth. The law creates specific criteria that must be met in order for someone sentenced to life imprisonment as a youth to become eligible for parole, including: completion of thirty-five years of the sentence; no discipline offenses within the past twelve months; completion of at least 100 hours of pre-release programming; completion of substance abuse treatment, if applicable; completion of a diploma, GED, or literacy, adult basic education, or job training program; designation as low-risk after a validated risk assessment; and completion of a reentry program. Additionally, at the parole hearing, board members must consider an evaluation by an expert in adolescent brain development and behavior. H.B. 152/Act No. 239, signed into law June 12, 2013; effective August 1, 2013.

Delaware modified its juvenile sentencing laws in order to bring them into compliance with the Miller v. Alabama U.S. Supreme Court decision. The law eliminates the sentence of juvenile life without parole and replaces it with a sentence of 25 years to life for convictions of first degree murder. The law allows anyone sentenced to more than 20 years in adult prison as a juvenile to petition for sentence modification. Such reviews must take place no later than 30 years into a sentence for first degree murder convictions and after 20 years for all other cases. The bill applies retroactively, applying to anyone serving a life without parole sentence for an offense committed before he or she turned 18. S.B. 9/Act No. 37, signed into law and effective June 4, 2013.

Coming into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, Nebraska eliminated mandatory sentences of life without parole for offenses committed by youth under the age of eighteen. Under the new law, youth may still be sentenced to 40 years to life. At sentencing, courts must consider mitigating factors, including the youth’s age, family and community environment, intellectual capacity, mental health, and “ability to appreciate the risks and consequences” of his or her conduct. After becoming eligible for parole, if individuals are denied, they must be reconsidered each subsequent year. The Board of Parole must consider individuals’ participation in educational and rehabilitative programs, maturity level, intellectual capacity, and other mitigating factors. L.B. 44, signed into law May 8, 2013; effective September 6, 2013.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, Arkansas passed legislation that eliminates mandatory life without parole sentences for youth convicted of capital murder for offenses committed prior to the age of 18. The new law allows instead a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 28 years. Prior to this revision, any youth convicted of capital murder received a mandatory sentence of life without parole. The law is not retroactive. H.B. 1993/Act No. 1490, signed into law and effective April 22, 2013.

Utah eliminated the sentence of life without parole for most offenses committed by youth under age 18. The legislation was spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, although Utah was not required to change its sentences because it did not have any laws mandating life without parole sentences for youth. Individuals sentenced to life without parole for offenses committed when they were under age 18 are now eligible for parole review after 25 years. S.B. 228/Act No. 81, signed into law March 22, 2013; effective May 14, 2013.

Following Miller v. Alabama and a state Supreme Court case (Bear Cloud v. State, 294 P.3d 36 (2013)), Wyoming eliminated mandatory life without parole sentences for crimes committed by youth under age 18. Youth may still be sentenced to life without parole for certain crimes, but must become eligible for parole once they have served at least 25 years, or if their sentence is commuted to a term of years. H.B. 23/Act No. 18, signed into law February 14, 2013; effective July 1, 2013.

Youth in Pennsylvania may no longer receive mandatory life-without-parole sentences for offenses committed when under age 18. The law—Pennsylvania’s move to come into compliance with Miller v. Alabama—provides alternative minimum sentences ranging from 20 years to life to 35 years to life, depending on the offense and the youth’s age. In determining whether to sentence a youth to life without parole, courts must consider age-related characteristics of the youth, including, age, maturity, mental capacity, and prior history. S.B. 850/Act No. 204, signed into law and effective October 25, 2012.

Legislature passed a law that allows individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as youth to petition for resentencing after they have served 15 years. At that time, judges have the discretion to change a sentence from life without parole to 25 years to life. The law requires judges to review eight factors related to the petitioner's criminal and developmental history and the petitioner must submit a statement addressing his or her remorse and work towards rehabilitation. If the sentence is not changed on the first attempt, individuals may reapply for resentencing after having served 20 and 24 years. The law is retroactive. S.B. 9/Act No. 828, signed into law September 30, 2012; effective January 1, 2014.

California SB 9 allows youth sentenced to die in prison the chance to petition for reconsideration of the sentences after they have served 15 years; at that point, judges will have the option to change a sentence from life without parole to 25 years to life.

The California Supreme Court ruled that youth convicted of non-homicide crimes may not be issued lengthy sentences that are effectively de facto sentences of life without the possibility of parole. This ruling followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Graham v. Florida, which held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits sentencing youth who are convicted for non-homicide offense to life without the possibility of parole. The California case centered around a 110-year-to-life sentence given to an 18-year-old for crimes he committed at age 16. The California Supreme Court wrote that “the state may not deprive [youth] at sentencing of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society in the future.” The People of the State of California v. Rodrigo Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262, 282 P.3d 291, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 (2012).

Complying with Miller v. Alabama, North Carolina abolished mandatory life imprisonment without parole for youth convicted of first degree murder for offenses committed while under age 18. Judges now have the option of sentencing youth to life with parole after serving 25 years. At the sentencing hearing, courts must consider mitigating factors, and defense counsel may submit evidence related to the youth’s age, immaturity, mental health, intellectual capacity, ability to appreciate the risks and consequences of his or her behavior, amenability to rehabilitation, and the influence of familial or peer pressure. The issue of whether the new law is retroactive now sits before the North Carolina Supreme Court. S.B. 635/Act No. 2012-148, signed into law and effective July 12, 2012.

The Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.

Louisiana passed legislation to end juvenile life without parole for non-homicide offenses. The bill follows the ruling in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), providing parole eligibility for youth sentenced to life imprisonment who have reached age forty-five, served twenty years of the imposed sentence, and have no serious disciplinary offenses. The parole board must consider a risk assessment, an evaluation by an expert in adolescent brain development, and any other relevant information. S.B. 317/Act No. 466, signed into law June 1, 2012; effective August 1, 2012.

A report on admissibility filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in which the IACHR agrees to hear the petition filed on behalf of Michigan youth sentenced to life without parole.

This report summarizes findings from the first-ever in-depth survey of the approximately 2,500 individuals in the United States serving sentences of life without parole for crimes they committed before age 18.

Youth found to have violated parole in Illinois have broader options: such youth may be continued under the existing term of parole, with or without modification; may be placed in a group home or residential facility; or may be recommitted. The law also instructs the Juvenile Justice Commission to develop recommendations regarding due process protections during release decision-making processes, including parole and parole revocation proceedings.

Video of oral arguments in a case held in abeyance pending the outcome of Graham v. Florida. Case examines whether the life sentence handed down to a boy convicted of first-degree intentional homicide that was committed when he was 14 years old constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative argues the unconstitutionality of a life without parole sentence for someone so young.

Opinion editorial by a woman whose daughter was killed by two 15-year-old boys many years ago. The author discovered the humanity of these youth through the process of restorative justice and believes that the Supreme Court must go even further than they did in Graham v. Florida to allow all youth the opportunity for rehabilitation and release.

Issue brief explaining why the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole is deeply flawed public policy; addressing the long-recognized principle that youth are different from adults, reinforced in recent years by adolescent development brain science, as well as by examples of youth who were successfully rehabilitated; critiquing the frequently argued notion that harsh sentencing is necessary to protect public safety, a premise undermined by both the inconsistent and arbitrary application and by the resulting diversion of taxpayer dollars that could be used to increase public safety through prevention programs; and discussing how the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole undermines America’s moral standing in the world, as the only nation in the world that imposes this irrevocable sentence on people under the age of eighteen.

Report assessing the dramatic increase in the imposition of life sentences in the context of incapacitation and public safety, fiscal costs, goals of punishment, and the appropriateness of life sentences for juveniles. The report also discusses trends in the life-sentenced population. The findings in this report demonstrate that the life-sentenced population has expanded dramatically in recent decades, along with the explosion of the prison population overall.

Youth ages 14 to 17 in Texas who are found guilty of a capital felony now have the opportunity for parole. Previously, these youth could only be sentenced to life without parole. The law is not retroactive; youth previously sentenced to life without parole will continue to serve that sentence.

Blog condemning the practice of sentencing youth to prison for life without the possibility of parole. Article argues that sentencing must reflect the seriousness of the crime, but that it also must acknowledge that culpability can be substantially lessened due to the immaturity of the accused. Child offenders should be given the possibility of freedom one day when they have matured and shown their capacity for rehabilitation.

Article addressing the case of a 13-year-old who was sentenced to life without parole for an alleged rape in 1989. Joe Sullivan, now 33, alleged before the United States Supreme Court that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment extends to sentencing someone who was barely a teenager to die in prison for a crime that did not involve a killing. The article highlights the rarity of such a severe sentence for such a young individual who was not accused of killing.

Report illuminating the cruel and unusual punishment of life sentences without parole inflicted on children, particularly for those who have been without legal help for so long that the procedural obstacles to winning relief in court will be formidable.

Report focusing on the imposition of the death penalty and life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders. Paper discusses the juvenile death penalty within the context of international law and the practice as it is implemented in those few remaining countries that still allow it and any positive developments in the effort to abolish it. Paper also looks at the imposition of life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders in the context of international standards, concluding that the ban on juvenile life without parole has reached the level of customary international law. Finally, paper sets forth recommendations to abolish the both the juvenile death penalty and life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.

Report examining juvenile life without parole sentences imposed in Michigan for offenses committed by individuals under eighteen, as they compare to the nation and the world. The report outlines the nature and extent of these sentences, their inequities and their toll on society, and presents recommendations for a rational and humane response to juvenile crime.